 |
|
Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins in the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes
Peter J. Zed, PharmD;
James E. Tisdale, PharmD;
Steven Borzak, MD
Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:1849-1857.
ABSTRACT
Acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina and non–Q-wave myocardial infarction) are caused by the rupture of an atherosclerotic plaque, platelet activation, and fibrin deposition resulting in thrombosis. Aspirin and unfractionated heparin have traditionally been the treatments of choice for patients with acute coronary syndromes. Low-molecular-weight heparins offer potential advantages over unfractionated heparin, having proven equally effective for the treatment and prevention of many thromboembolic processes. Recently, a number of randomized controlled trials have been conducted to evaluate the role of low-molecular-weight heparins in the management of patients with unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction. The purpose of this article is to review and evaluate the available literature on the use of low-molecular-weight heparins in the management of acute coronary syndromes to establish their role in therapy.
INTRODUCTION
The initiating event of the acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina and non–Q-wave myocardial infarction) involves the rupture of an atherosclerotic plaque resulting in the platelet activation and fibrin deposition that leads to thrombosis.1 Evidence that both platelet activation and thrombin generation are involved in the thrombotic process provides a rationale for the use of both aspirin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the management of acute coronary syndromes. There has been much research and debate in the past decade on the value of these agents alone or in combination.2-8 Aspirin and UFH have become the standard practice for treatment of patients presenting with unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction. Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have recently been marketed in North America and offer potential advantages over UFH. The purpose of this article is to review and evaluate the available literature on the use of LMWHs in the management of acute coronary syndromes and to provide recommendations for their role in therapy.
UNFRACTIONATED HEPARIN
Unfractionated heparin is a heterogeneous polydispersed mixture of sulfated polysaccharides ranging in molecular weight from 5000 to 30,000 d (average molecular weight, 12,000-15,000 d).9 Its major anticoagulant effect is attributed to a unique pentasaccharide sequence with high affinity for antithrombin III (ATIII).9 Binding of heparin to ATIII produces a conformational change in this protein, accelerating the ability to inactivate the coagulation enzymes thrombin (factor IIa), factor Xa, and factor IXa. Of these 3 enzymes, thrombin is the most sensitive to inhibition by the heparin/ATIII complex.10-13 Unfractionated heparin accelerates the inactivation of thrombin by ATIII by acting as a template to which both the enzyme and the inhibitor bind to form a ternary complex. In contrast, the inactivation of factor Xa does not require a ternary complex and is achieved by binding directly to ATIII.14 The ability of UFH to inhibit thrombin is dependent on saccharide chain length and ultimately molecular weight. Thus, UFH molecules that contain fewer than 18 saccharide units are unable to bind thrombin and ATIII simultaneously and therefore are unable to accelerate the inactivation of thrombin. However, they do retain their ability to catalyze the inactivation of factor Xa.14-15
Unfractionated heparin is not absorbed following oral administration and therefore must be given by intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) injection. The efficacy and safety of UFH when administered by either continuous IV infusion or by the SC route are comparable provided that the doses are adequate.16 Following its injection and passage into the bloodstream, UFH binds to a number of plasma proteins including histidine-rich glycoprotein, platelet factor 4, vitronectin, fibronectin, and von Willebrand factor.9 The binding of UFH to these proteins results in reduced bioavailability, variable anticoagulant response, and the phenomenon known as heparin resistance.17 Unfractionated heparin also binds to macrophages and endothelial cells, another reason for its complicated pharmacokinetics. Unfractionated heparin is cleared through the combination of a rapid, concentration-dependent (saturable) mechanism and a much slower nonsaturable mechanism. The concentration-dependent mechanism results from UFH binding to macrophages and endothelial cells. Clearance through the much slower nonsaturable mechanism is partially through renal excretion. The apparent biological half-life of UFH is dose dependent, increasing from 30 minutes with an IV bolus of 25 U/kg, to 60 minutes with an IV bolus of 100 U/kg, to 150 minutes with an IV bolus of 400 U/kg.18-19
The anticoagulant effect of UFH is traditionally monitored by the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), which is sensitive to the inhibitory effect of UFH on thrombin, factor Xa, and factor IXa. Therapeutic ranges are typically 1.5 to 2.5 times baseline aPTT.9 Alternatively, UFH treatment can be monitored by a chromatographic antifactor Xa heparin assay with a targeted range of 0.3 to 0.7 U/mL.9
Administration of UFH is associated with some disadvantages. The interpatient variability of anticoagulant response is thought to be due to the interindividual differences in concentrations of heparin-neutralizing plasma proteins, as well as variable elevations of factor VIII as part of the acute-phase reaction response to ischemia.9 Bleeding is the most common complication of UFH therapy; UFH has the potential to induce bleeding by inhibiting blood coagulation, impairing platelet function, and increasing capillary permeability.9 Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia occurs in approximately 3% to 4% of heparin-treated patients.20-22 It is an immunoglobulin-mediated adverse drug reaction associated with a high risk for thrombotic complications. The pathogenic antibody, usually IgG, recognizes a multimolecular complex of heparin and platelet factor 4 resulting in platelet activation.22-23 Finally, osteoporosis has been associated with high-dose, long-term UFH therapy.24-27
LOW-MOLECULAR-WEIGHT HEPARINS
Low-molecular-weight heparins are produced by enzymatic or chemical depolymerization of UFH to yield chains with molecular weights ranging from 4000 to 6500 d, with an average molecular weight of 5000 d (15 saccharide units)28-30 (Table 1). Owing to their small molecular size, LMWHs have a reduced ability to catalyze the inactivation of thrombin relative to their ability to catalyze the inactivation of factor Xa. Thus, compared with UFH, which has an antifactor Xa–antifactor IIa ratio of 1:1, LMWHs have an antifactor Xa–antifactor IIa ratio of between 4:1 and 2:1 (Table 2). The relative importance of inhibition of factor Xa and thrombin in mediating the antithrombotic effect of UFH and LMWHs is unclear, but there is evidence that they are both necessary.11-12,32 In addition, the reduced protein binding of LMWHs improves their pharmacokinetic properties, and a minimal interaction with platelets could be responsible for the reduced microvascular bleeding and lower incidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.28-29
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Characteristics of Available Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins (LMWHs)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Comparison of Unfractionated Heparin (UFH) and Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins (LMWHs)
|
|
|
The bioavailability of LMWHs after SC injection is approximately 90% compared with 30% for UFH.29 This difference may be explained by the lower binding affinity of LMWHs for plasma proteins such as histidine-rich glycoproteins, fibronectin, and platelet factor 4.33-35 This lower rate of protein binding of LMWHs compared with UFH explains the more predictable anticoagulant response that can be obtained at a given dose of LMWHs. The half-life of 2 to 4 hours following IV administration and 3 to 6 hours following SC injection is longer than the average 90-minute half-life of UFH.31, 36-37 In addition, while UFH is eliminated in 2 phases, LMWHs are eliminated almost entirely by the renal route (Table 2).18, 38 Overall, the combination of predictable anticoagulant response, high bioavailability, and long half-life of LMWHs means that an adequate and predictable anticoagulant response can be achieved with 1 or 2 daily SC injections at fixed or weight-adjusted doses.28-29 In addition, because LMWHs do not affect the aPTT, routine laboratory monitoring to assess the anticoagulant effect is not necessary. Although an antifactor Xa assay is available, it is not routinely used owing to its expense and the lack of a clinically defined therapeutic range.
Treatment with LMWHs in animal models results in less bleeding than UFH treatment.39-40 This decreased incidence of bleeding may be explained by the following: (1) LMWHs have a lower affinity for platelets, thus inhibiting their function less than UFH41-42; (2) unlike UFH, LMWHs do not increase microvascular permeability43; and (3) because of their lower affinity for endothelial cells, von Willebrand factor, and platelets, LMWHs are less likely to interfere with the prothrombotic interaction between platelets and the vessel wall.40, 44-45 As a result of less interaction with platelets, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is less common with LMWHs than with UFH.21-23
While there is a suggestion that the risk of bleeding is lower with LMWHs than with UFH in certain patient groups, this favorable result does not occur in all studies. The reduction in the risk of bleeding observed in early experimental animal models has not been as obvious in clinical studies. Results from clinical trials and meta-analyses show a similar or lower incidence of bleeding with LMWHs46-52; however, other studies have shown higher bleeding rates with LMWHs.53-54 Evidence from recent clinical trials indicates that the risk of major bleeding complications with LMWHs is similar to that of UFH55-57; however, minor bleeding complications have been higher in the LMWH trials primarily as a result of injection-site ecchymosis.56-57 Overall, it seems that the theoretical advantage of reduced bleeding complications with LMWHs has not been demonstrated clinically, and if anything, the risk of minor bleeding complications is greater than it is with UFH.
Low-molecular-weight heparins are as safe and effective as UFH for the treatment of venous thromboembolism46-48,55-56,58 and pulmonary embolism.59 In addition, they are as safe and effective for prevention of venous thromboembolism following abdominal surgery,60 orthopedic surgery,61-62 spinal surgery,63-64 multiple trauma,65 and other general medical conditions.66-67 Trials are currently under way evaluating the role of LMWHs for indications that are currently treated with UFH.29
CLINICAL TRIALS IN ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROMES
The efficacy of aspirin in the acute phase of unstable angina has been demonstrated in a number of randomized, controlled clinical trials.2-3,68-69 The addition of UFH to aspirin may further improve survival and prevent progression to nonfatal myocardial infarction.2-4,7-8 Oler et al70 recently conducted a meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials involving 1353 patients comparing aspirin plus UFH with aspirin alone to estimate the effect on subsequent myocardial infarction and death in patients with unstable angina. At 30 days, the addition of UFH to aspirin was associated with a 33% reduction in death or myocardial infarction, or 10.4% in the aspirin group and 7.9% in the aspirin plus UFH group (P=.06). However, the confidence interval was wide, and included a 56% reduction as well as a 2% excess of events. These statistically marginal benefits may have been a result of limitations of UFH rather than the lack of importance of thrombin inhibition in reducing ischemic events. The limited number of patients studied may also have affected the results.
To identify and evaluate the use of LMWHs in the management of acute coronary syndromes, we conducted a qualitative systematic review of the English-language literature from 1966 to December 1998 using MEDLINE. Key terms used in the literature search included unstable angina, myocardial infarction, heparin, and low-molecular-weight heparin. In addition, the references from relevant literature were reviewed to collect reports not identified in the MEDLINE search. Finally, we contacted experts in the field to obtain information on unpublished results and conference abstracts. We included all controlled clinical trials using LMWHs in unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction that reported either efficacy or safety outcomes. All trials were evaluated independently by each of us for inclusion in the review as well as for scientific validity.
There have been 6 prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials and 1 open-labeled dose-ranging study completed evaluating the role of LMWHs in patients with unstable angina and non–Q-wave myocardial infarction (Table 3). Gurfinkel et al71 randomized 219 patients with unstable angina to receive 214 U of nadroparin by SC injection twice daily or 5000 U of UFH by IV bolus followed by a continuous infusion or matching placebo for 5 to 7 days (Table 3). There was a significant reduction in the number of patients reaching the primary end point of recurrent angina, nonfatal myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, or death in the nadroparin group compared with the UFH and placebo groups, respectively (Table 4). Patients receiving nadroparin had significantly less recurrent angina than the patients in the UFH or placebo groups. There was no significant difference in major bleeding complications (Figure 1); however, more patients in the UFH group experienced minor bleeding (Figure 2). There was a trend toward favorable results using nadroparin to prevent myocardial infarction and the need for revascularization, but the sample size was insufficient to conclusively evaluate this end point.
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Clinical Trials of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins in Patients With Unstable Angina or Non–Q-Wave Myocardial Infarction*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Results of Clinical Trials*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Major bleeding complications. Gurfinkel et al71 indicate a fall in hemoglobin level of more than 20 g/L (>2 g/dL), a need for transfusion, or both; the Fragmin during Instability in Coronary Artery Disease Study (FRISC),72 a fall in hemoglobin level of more than 20 g/L (>2 g/dL) associated with signs and symptoms, intracranial bleeding, or bleeding leading to transfusion, interruption of treatment, or death; the Fragmin in Unstable Coronary Artery Disease Study (FRIC),73 a fall in hemoglobin level of more than 20 g/L (>2 g/dL), a required transfusion, intracranial hemorrhage, or death or cessation of therapy; the Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non–Q-Wave Coronary Events Study (ESSENCE),57 a fall in hemoglobin level of more than 30 g/L (>3 g/dL), bleeding resulting in death, transfusion of at least 2 U of blood, or a retroperitoneal, intracranial, or intraocular hemorrhage; and the Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (TIMI) 11B,77 at least 1 of the following: (1) clinically overt hemorrhage resulting in a fall in hemoglobin level of more than 30 g/L (>3g/dL), and/or (2) a retroperitoneal, intracranial, or intraocular hemorrhage. LMWH indicates low-molecular-weight heparin; UFH, unfractionated heparin; and asterisk, P=.02.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Minor bleeding complications. LMWH indicates low-molecular-weight heparin; UFH, unfractionated heparin; FRISC, Fragmin during Instability in Coronary Artery Disease Study72; FRIC, Fragmin in Unstable Coronary Artery Disease Study;73 ESSENCE, Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non–Q-Wave Coronary Events Study57; asterisk, P=.01; and dagger, P<.001.
|
|
|
The Fragmin during Instability in Coronary Artery Disease (FRISC) Study Group72 evaluated the use of dalteparin in 1506 patients with unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction (Table 3). Patients presenting within 72 hours of the onset of chest pain were randomized to receive 120 U/kg of dalteparin by SC injection twice daily for 6 days followed by 7500 U subcutaneously once daily for an additional 35 to 45 days or matching placebo. Results after 6 days indicated a 63% reduction in the primary end point of death or myocardial infarction in the dalteparin group compared with the placebo group (Table 4). The absolute risk reduction of 3% correlates to 1 death or myocardial infarction prevented at 6 days for every 34 dalteparin-treated patients. The difference between the 2 groups was not significant when evaluated at 40 and 150 days. The dalteparin-treated groups experienced more minor bleeding complications (Figure 2). The results of the acute phase of this trial are similar to trials conducted comparing UFH with placebo.2-5 Therefore, it appears that dalteparin is more effective than placebo in patients with unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction. However, long-term benefits of dalteparin were not established in this trial.
The Fragmin in Unstable Coronary Artery Disease Study (FRIC)73 was a prospective, 2-phase trial in 1482 patients with unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction (Table 3). During the acute phase, patients were randomized within 72 hours of the onset of chest pain in an open-labeled fashion to receive 120 U/kg of dalteparin by SC injection twice daily or 5000 U of UFH by IV bolus followed by a continuous infusion. After treatment of the acute condition, patients were randomized into a chronic phase group in a double-blinded manner to receive 7500 U of dalteparin by SC injection daily or matching placebo on days 6 through 45. Between days 6 and 45 the proportion of patients reaching the primary end point of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or recurrent angina was 12.3% in both the dalteparin and UFH groups (Table 4). At 6 days, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in reaching the same composite triple end point. The proportion of revascularizations at 45 days did not differ between the 2 groups. There was no difference in major and minor bleeding complications between the 2 groups (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The authors concluded that dalteparin seemed to be equivalent to UFH in the acute phase of unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction, and that prolonged administration of a reduced dose of dalteparin offered no advantage over long-term therapy with aspirin alone. The trial was not powered to detect a difference in death, myocardial infarction, or recurrent angina during the acute phase.
The Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 11A Trial investigators74 conducted an open-labeled, dose-ranging study using enoxaparin in patients with unstable angina and non–Q-wave myocardial infarction (Table 3). During the acute phase, patients were treated with 1.0 mg/kg of enoxaparin by SC injection twice daily or 1.25 mg/kg of enoxaparin by SC injection twice daily for a minimum of 48 hours. After the acute treatment, patients were discharged and received 40 to 60 mg of enoxaparin by SC injection twice daily to complete 14 days of therapy. The primary end point was major hemorrhage occurring within 2 weeks of enrollment, which occurred more frequently in patients receiving 1.25 mg/kg of enoxaparin than in the 1.0-mg/kg group (Figure 1). No difference was found in any of the secondary end points of death, myocardial infarction, or recurrent ischemia requiring revascularization (Table 4). Since this trial was an unblinded dose-ranging study, no definitive conclusions could be made about the efficacy of enoxaparin in unstable angina.
The Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non–Q-Wave Coronary Events Study Group (ESSENCE)57 conducted one of the largest trials comparing the use of LMWHs to UFH in acute coronary syndromes (Table 3). This trial enrolled 3171 patients with unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction. Patients were randomized to receive 1.0 mg/kg of enoxaparin subcutaneously twice daily or 5000 U of UFH by IV bolus followed by a continuous infusion. Treatment continued for a period of at least 48 hours and for as long as 8 days. At the conclusion of the trial, significantly fewer enoxaparin-treated patients reached the primary end point of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or recurrent angina at 14 days (Table 4). This significant difference was maintained at 30 days. There was no difference between groups at 48 hours, nor was there a difference in the combination end point of death or myocardial infarction at 14 and 30 days. Results after 1 year of follow-up have been presented, and the early benefit of enoxaparin in the primary end point was maintained (32% for enoxaparin vs 35.7% for UFH; P=.02).78 The difference between the 2 groups was primarily the result of less recurrent angina in the enoxaparin group, which composed 75% of events. There was no difference between groups in major bleeding complications (Figure 1); however, more patients in the enoxaparin groups experienced minor bleeding (Figure 2). One limitation of this trial was the fixed rather than weight-adjusted UFH nomogram. Only 46% of patients had therapeutic levels of UFH at 24 hours, which improved to only 51.3% at 48 hours. Although a weight-adjusted heparin nomogram may achieve a therapeutic aPTT more rapidly in patients with venous thromboembolism, the importance of weight-adjusted nomograms in patients with angina has not been thoroughly studied.79-80
The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 11B Trial investigators75 conducted a second study comparing 1.0 mg/kg of enoxaparin by SC injection twice daily with UFH using a weight-adjusted UFH nomogram for the treatment of unstable angina and non–Q-wave myocardial infarction (Table 3). During the acute phase, patients received treatment for a minimum of 72 hours and up to 8 days. Following acute treatment, patients initially randomized to enoxaparin continued to receive enoxaparin for an additional 35 days at a weight-adjusted reduced dose of 40 to 60 mg SC twice daily. Patients randomized to UFH received placebo during the chronic phase. Results were presented at the 71st Scientific Sessions of the American Heart Association in Dallas, Tex, and indicate that fewer enoxaparin-treated patients reached the primary end points of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and severe recurrent ischemia requiring revascularization during the acute phase (Table 4).77 This initial benefit was maintained at 43 days; however, no relative reduction in events occurred during the chronic phase. Superiority of enoxaparin in the acute phase was not associated with any increase in major bleeding (Figure 1); however, there was an increase in major hemorrhage during the chronic phase.
Combined analysis of the results of ESSENCE and TIMI 11B showed a consistent reduction in the odds of the triple end point of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization at 8, 14, and 43 days after randomization. Overall, there was a relative 20% reduction at 43 days (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.91). This reduction was also evident when the double end point of death or myocardial infarction was evaluated at 43 days (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.98).77
Preliminary results from the Fraxiparine in Ischemic Syndromes (FRAXIS) trial were presented at the 20th Congress of the European Society of Cardiology meetings (Table 3).76 This trial enrolled 3468 patients presenting with either unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction. Patients were randomized to receive 1 of 3 treatments: 0.1 mL/10 kg of nadroparin by SC injection every 12 hours for 6 days; 0.1 mL/10 kg of nadroparin by SC injection every 12 hours for 14 days; or UFH for 6 days. Results indicated no significant difference in the primary end point between the 3 treatment groups for cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or refractory or recurrent angina at 14 days, with event rates of 17.8%, 20.0%, and 18.1%, respectively. Major bleeding was similar between the groups when evaluated at 6 days; however, a higher major bleeding rate occurred in the 14-day nadroparin arm compared with the 6-day nadroparin and UFH groups (3.5%, 1.5%, and 1.6%, respectively) when evaluated at 14 days.
PHARMACOECONOMICS
The positive clinical results demonstrated in the ESSENCE trial were supplemented with a pharmacoeconomic analysis comparing LMWHs and UFH in acute coronary syndromes. Mark et al81 conducted a prospective economic assessment of 936 patients enrolled in the ESSENCE trial. These patients represented 85% of all the patients enrolled from the United States. Results of the cost analysis demonstrated that the improved clinical outcomes for patients treated with enoxaparin were associated with a cost saving. Despite the US $75 incremental drug cost of administering enoxaparin rather than UFH, cost savings of US $763 were realized at hospital discharge and US $1172 at 30 days. The most substantial resource effect of enoxaparin was a reduction in the use of coronary angioplasty, which was a result of the clinical reduction of recurrent ischemic events. Additional savings resulted from the estimated reduction in the cost of IV therapy, tubing and appliances, and aPTT monitoring. This analysis did not evaluate cost of outpatient care or indirect costs related to lost productivity. The authors concluded that the clinical as well as economic advantages of using enoxaparin over UFH made it a dominant strategy in the management of acute coronary syndromes.
A Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis has also been conducted based on the 30-day end point of the ESSENCE trial.82 Based on costs of medical care in Canada, the average cost per patient for enoxaparin was determined to be Can $848 vs Can $892 for UFH. (At the time of this analysis, Can $1.00 was equivalent to US $0.66.) As with the US economic analysis, enoxaparin was considered the dominant antithrombotic pharmacotherapeutic strategy for patients with unstable coronary artery disease.
CONCLUSIONS
The data evaluating the use of LMWHs in the management of acute coronary syndromes continue to accumulate. Despite the encouraging clinical trial results, the variation in study designs and trial end points complicates a quantitative systematic comparison of all these data. However, evidence from TIMI 11B and ESSENCE involving over 7000 patients is sufficient to allow recommending the use of LMWHs in the management of acute coronary syndromes.
Low-molecular-weight heparins are superior to placebo and UFH in reducing ischemic events or death in the acute phase of unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction. Prolonged therapy with lower doses of LMWHs may not offer any advantage over aspirin in the prevention of coronary events or death. Major bleeding complications are similar for LMWHs and UFH, but minor bleeding complications are more common with LMWHs primarily because of injection-site hematomas. Finally, LMWHs appear to be cost-effective compared with UFH based on pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted in Canada and the United States based on the ESSENCE study results. Taken together, the use of LMWHs for the treatment of unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction should be favored over UFH.
Several questions regarding LMWHs remain unresolved. First, are all LMWH agents comparable? Although the biochemical distinctions between agents may be minor, few data define whether important clinical differences between agents result. Evidence from FRIC and FRAXIS failed to demonstrate increased efficacy of LMWHs over UFH by using dalteparin and nadroparin, respectively.73, 76 As a result, the effective dose of these agents remains uncertain. Alternatively, data from ESSENCE and TIMI 11B show the greatest benefits and demonstrate superiority over UFH using enoxaparin.57, 75, 77 Thus, based on the best available evidence, a class effect of LMWH preparations should not be assumed, and enoxaparin should be the preferred LMWH agent for patients with unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction. Enoxaparin, 1.0 mg/kg, subcutaneously twice daily should be continued for at least 72 hours, but not beyond the hospital phase.
Other unanswered questions include the use of LMWHs with other antiplatelet agents such as the IV and oral glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists or direct thrombin inhibitors. Results of large, randomized, controlled trials using glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists for acute coronary syndromes are encouraging.83-86 Unfortunately, it may be many years before these agents are evaluated in combination with LMWHs. To date, clinical experience with direct thrombin inhibitors has been disappointing, with no clear evidence of clinical efficacy and potential increased bleeding risk.87-88 Promising results from the Organisation to Assess Strategies for Ischemic Syndromes (OASIS-2) Investigators demonstrated an improved outcomes compared with UFH; however, the benefit in combination with or compared with LMWHs remains unknown.89 Research will continue in an attempt to improve outcomes for patients with cardiovascular disease. In the meantime, LMWHs appear to be a major advance in the management of unstable angina and non–Q-wave myocardial infarction.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Accepted for publication January 26, 1999.
Dr Tisdale has received lecture honoraria from Hoechst-Marion Roussel Inc, Kansas City, Mo; Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Cranbury, NJ; Merck & Co, Whitehouse Station, NJ; Boehringer-Mannheim, now merged with Roche Pharmaceuticals, Nutley, NJ; and G. D. Searle & Co, Skokie, Ill. He has received research grants from Hoechst-Marion Roussel Inc and Merck & Co. He has been a consultant for Hoechst-Marion Roussel Inc; Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories; Rhone-Poulenc-Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Collegeville, Pa; Roche Pharmaceuticals; Parke-Davis, Morris Plains, NJ; Cor Therapeutics, San Francisco, Calif; and 3M Pharmaceuticals, St Paul, Minn. Dr Borzak has served on the speakers' bureau and received grants from Rhone-Poulenc-Rorer.
Corresponding author: Peter J. Zed, PharmD, CSU Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Center, 855 W 12th Ave, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 1M9 (e-mail: zed{at}interchange.ubc.ca).
From CSU Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Center, and the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Dr Zed); and the Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy and Allied Health Professions, Wayne State University and Department of Pharmacy Services (Dr Tisdale), and the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine (Dr Borzak), Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Mich.
REFERENCES
| |
1. Fuster V, Badimon L, Badimon JJ, Chesebro JH. The pathogenesis of coronary artery disease and the acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:242-250.
ISI
| PUBMED
2. Theroux P, Ouimet H, McCans J, et al. Aspirin, heparin, or both to treat acute unstable angina. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:1105-1111.
ABSTRACT
3. The RISC Group. Risk of myocardial infarction and death during treatment with low-dose aspirin and intravenous heparin in men with unstable coronary artery disease. Lancet. 1990;336:827-830.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
4. Theroux P, Waters D, Qiu S, McCans J, de Guise P, Juneau M. Aspirin versus heparin to prevent myocardial infarction during the acute phase of unstable angina. Circulation. 1993;88:2045-2048.
FREE FULL TEXT
5. Cohen M, Adams PC, Parry G, et al. Combination antithrombotic therapy in unstable rest angina and non–Q-wave infarction in nonprior aspirin users: primary end points analysis from the ATACS trial. Circulation. 1994;89:81-88.
FREE FULL TEXT
6. Neri Serneri GG, Modesti PA, Gensini GF, et al. Randomized comparison of subcutaneous heparin, intravenous heparin, and aspirin in unstable angina. Lancet. 1995;345:1201-1204.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
7. Theroux P, Waters D, Lam J, Juneau M, McCans J. Reactivation of unstable angina after the discontinuation of heparin. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:141-145.
ABSTRACT
8. Holdright D, Patel D, Cunningham D, et al. Comparison of the effect of heparin and aspirin versus aspirin alone on transient myocardial ischemia and in-hospital prognosis in patients with unstable angina. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;24:39-45.
ABSTRACT
9. Hirsh J, Raschke R, Warkentin TE, Dalen JE, Deykin D, Poller L. Heparin: mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, dosing considerations, monitoring, efficacy, and safety. Chest. 1995;108(suppl):258S-275S.
10. Ofosu FA, Modi GJ, Hirsh J, Buchanan MR, Blajchman MA. Mechanisms for inhibition of the generation of thrombin activated by sulfated polysaccharides. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1986;485:41-55.
ISI
| PUBMED
11. Ofosu FA, Esmon CT, Blajchman MA, et al. Unfractionated heparin inhibits thrombin-catalyzed amplification reactions of coagulation more efficiently than those catalysed by factor Xa. Biochem J. 1989;257:143-150.
ISI
| PUBMED
12. Beguin S, Mardiguian J, Lindhout T, Hemker HC. The mode of action of low molecular weight heparin preparation (PK 10169) and two of its major components on thrombin generation in plasma. Thromb Haemost. 1989;61:30-34.
ISI
| PUBMED
13. Beguin S, Lindhout T, Hemker HC. The mode of action of heparin in plasma. Thromb Haemost. 1989;60:457-462.
ISI
14. Danielsson A, Raub E, Lindahl U, Bjork I. Role of ternary complexes, in which heparin binds both antithrombin and proteinase, in the acceleration of the reactions between antithrombin and thrombin or factor Xa. J Biol Chem. 1986;261:15467-15473.
FREE FULL TEXT
15. Jordon RE, Oosta GM, Gardner WT, Rosenberg RD. The kinetics of hemostatic enzyme-antithrombin interactions in the presence of low-molecular-weight heparin. J Biol Chem. 1980;255:10081-10090.
FREE FULL TEXT
16. Hommes DW, Bura A, Mazzolai L, Buller HR, ten Cate JW. Subcutaneous heparin compared with continuous intravenous heparin administration in the initial treatment of deep vein thrombosis: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:279-284.
17. Young E, Prins MH, Levine MN, Hirsh J. Heparin binding to plasma proteins, an important mechanism for heparin resistance. Thromb Haemost. 1992;67:639-643.
ISI
| PUBMED
18. Bjornsson TO, Wolfram KM, Kitchell BB. Heparin kinetics determined by three assay methods. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1982;31:104-113.
ISI
| PUBMED
19. De Swart CAM, Nijmeyer B, Roelofs JMM, Sixma JJ. Kinetics of intravenously administered heparin in normal humans. Blood. 1982;60:1251-1258.
FREE FULL TEXT
20. Singer RL, Mannion JD, Bauer TL, Armenti FR, Edie RN. Complications from heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. Chest. 1993;104:1436-1440.
FREE FULL TEXT
21. Warkentin TE, Levine MN, Hirsh J, et al. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in patients treated with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:1330-1335.
FREE FULL TEXT
22. Warkentin TE. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: pathogenesis, frequency, avoidance and management. Drug Saf. 1997;17:325-341.
ISI
| PUBMED
23. Brieger DB, Mak KH, Kottke-Marchant K, Topol EJ. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:1449-1459.
FREE FULL TEXT
24. Griffith CC, Nichols G, Asher JD, Flanagan B. Heparin osteoporosis. JAMA. 1965;193:85-88.
25. Howell R, Fidler J, Letsky E, de Swiet M. The risks of antenatal subcutaneous heparin prophylaxis: a controlled-trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1983;90:1124-1128.
ISI
| PUBMED
26. Dahlman T, Lindvall N, Hellgren M. Osteopenia in pregnancy during long-term heparin treatment: a radiological study post-partum. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97:221-228.
ISI
| PUBMED
27. Ginsberg JS, Kowalchuck G, Hirsh J, et al. Heparin effect on bone density. Thromb Haemost. 1990;64:286-289.
ISI
| PUBMED
28. Hirsh J, Levine MN. Low molecular weight heparin. Blood. 1992;79:1-17.
FREE FULL TEXT
29. Weitz JI. Low-molecular-weight heparins. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:688-698.
FREE FULL TEXT
30. Turpie AGG. Pharmacology of the low-molecular-weight heparins. Am Heart J. 1998;135:S329-S335.
31. Martineau P, Tawil N. Low-molecular-weight heparins in the treatment of deep-vein thrombosis. Ann Pharmacother. 1998;32:588-601.
ABSTRACT
32. Barrowcliffe TW, Merton RE, Havercroft SJ, Thunberg L, Lindahl U, Thomas DP. Low-affinity heparin potentiates the action of high-affinity heparin oligosaccharides. Thromb Res. 1984;34:125-133.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
33. Lane DA, Pejler G, Flynn AM, Thompson EA, Lindahl U. Neutralization of heparin-related saccharides by histidine-rich glycoprotein and platelet factor 4. J Biol Chem. 1986;261:3980-3986.
FREE FULL TEXT
34. Young E, Wells P, Holloway S, Weitz J, Hirsh J. Ex-vivo and in-vitro evidence that low-molecular weight heparins exhibit less binding to plasma proteins than unfractionated heparin. Thromb Haemost. 1994;71:300-304.
ISI
| PUBMED
35. Young E, Cosmi B, Weitz J, Hirsch J. Comparison of the non-specific binding of unfractionated heparin and low molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin) to plasma proteins. Thromb Haemost. 1993;70:625-630.
ISI
| PUBMED
36. Harenberg J. Pharmacology of low molecular weight heparins. Semin Thromb Hemost. 1990;16(suppl):12-18.
37. Matzsch T, Bergquist D, Hedner U, Ostergaard P. Effects of an enzymatically depolymerized heparin as compared with conventional heparin in healthy volunteers. Thromb Haemost. 1987;57:97-101.
ISI
| PUBMED
38. Boneu B, Caranobe C, Cadroy Y, et al. Pharmacokinetic studies of standard unfractionated heparin, and low molecular weight heparins in the rabbit. Semin Thromb Hemost. 1988;14:18-27.
ISI
| PUBMED
39. Bergqvist D, Nilsson B, Hedner U, Pederson PC, Ostergaard PB. The effects of heparin fragments of different molecular weights on experimental thrombosis and haemostasis. Thromb Res. 1985;38:589-601.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
40. Carter CJ, Kelton JG, Hirsch J, Cerskus A, Santos AV, Gent M. The relationship between the hemorrhagic and antithrombotic properties of low molecular weight heparins in rabbits. Blood. 1982;59:1339-1345.
41. Salzman EW, Rosenberg RD, Smith MH, Lindon JN, Favreau L. Effect of heparin and heparin fractions on platelet aggregation. J Clin Invest. 1980;65:64-73.
42. Horne III MK, Chao ES. The effect of molecular weight on heparin binding to platelets. Br J Haematol. 1990;74:306-312.
ISI
| PUBMED
43. Blajchman MA, Young E, Ofosu FA. Effects of unfractionated heparin, dermatan sulfate and low molecular weight heparin on vessel wall permeability in rabbits. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1989;556:245-254.
ISI
| PUBMED
44. Sobel M, McNeill PM, Carlson PL, et al. Heparin inhibition of von Willebrand factor–dependent platelet function in vitro and in vivo. J Clin Invest. 1991;87:1787-1793.
45. de Romeuf C, Mazurier C. Heparin binding assay of von Willebrand factor (vWF) in plasma milieu: evidence of the importance of the mutimerization degree of vWF. Thromb Haemost. 1993;69:436-440.
ISI
| PUBMED
46. Leizororovicz A, Simonneau G, Decousis H, Boissel JP. Comparison of efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparins and unfractionated heparin in initial treatment of venous thrombosis: a meta-analysis. BMJ. 1994;309:299-304.
FREE FULL TEXT
47. Siragusa S, Cosmi B, Piovella F, Hirsh J, Ginsberg JS. Low-molecular-weight heparins and unfractionated heparin in the treatment of patients with acute venous thromboembolism: results of a meta-analysis. Am J Med. 1996;100:269-277.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
48. Lensing AWA, Prins MH, Davidson BL, Hirsch J. Treatment of deep-vein thrombosis with low molecular-weight-heparins: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:601-607.
FREE FULL TEXT
49. Anderson DR, O'Brien BJ, Levine MN, Roberts R, Wells PS, Hirsh J. Efficacy and cost of low-molecular-weight heparin compared with standard heparin for the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis after total hip arthroplasty. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:1105-1112.
FREE FULL TEXT
50. Lassen MR, Borris LC, Christiansen HM, et al. Clinical trials with low molecular weight heparins in the prevention of postoperative thromboembolic complications: a meta-analysis. Semin Thromb Hemost. 1991;17(suppl 3):284-290.
51. Nuromohamed MT, Rosendaal FR, Buller HR, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin in general and orthopedic surgery: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 1992;340:152-156.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
52. Hull RD, Raskob GE, Pineo GF, et al. Subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin compared with continuous intravenous heparin in the treatment of proximal vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:975-982.
ABSTRACT
53. Bergqvist D, Burmark US, Frisell J, et al. Thromboprophylactic effect of low molecular weight heparin started in the evening before elective general abdominal surgery: a comparison with low-dose heparin. Semin Thromb Hemost. 1990;16(suppl):19-24.
54. Bergqvist D, Burmark US, Frisell J, et al. Prospective double-blind comparison between Fragmin and conventional low-dose heparin: thromboprophylactic effect and bleeding complications. Haemostasis. 1986;16(suppl 2):11-18.
55. Levine M, Gent M, Hirsch J, et al. A comparison of low-molecular weight heparin administered primarily at home with unfractionated heparin in the hospital for proximal deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:677-681.
FREE FULL TEXT
56. Koopman MM, Prandoni P, Piovella F, et al. Treatment of venous thrombosis with intravenous unfractionated heparin administered in the hospital as compared to subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin administered at home. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:682-687.
FREE FULL TEXT
57. Cohen M, Demers C, Gurfinkel EP, et al. A comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for unstable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:447-452.
FREE FULL TEXT
58. The Columbus Investigators. Low-molecular weight heparin in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism. N Eng J Med. 1997;337:657-662.
FREE FULL TEXT
59. Simonneau G, Sors H, Charbonnier B, et al. A comparison of low-molecular weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:663-669.
FREE FULL TEXT
60. Kakker W, Cohen AT, Edmonson RA, et al. Low molecular weight heparin versus standard heparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism after major abdominal surgery. Lancet. 1993;341:259-265.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
61. Turpie AGG, Levine MN, Hirsch J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a low-molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin) to prevent deep-vein thrombosis in patients undergoing elective hip surgery. N Engl J Med. 1986;315:925-929.
ABSTRACT
62. Leclerc JR, Geerts WH, Desjardins L, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism after knee arthroplasty: a randomized, double-blind trial comparing enoxaparin with warfarin. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:619-626.
FREE FULL TEXT
63. Green D. Prophylaxis of thromboembolism in spinal-cord injured patients. Chest. 1994;102(suppl A):649S-651S.
64. Green D, Lee Y, Ito VY, et al. Fixed- vs. adjusted-dose heparin in the prophylaxis of thromboembolism in spinal cord injury. JAMA. 1988;260:1255-1258.
FREE FULL TEXT
65. Geerts WH, Jay RM, Code KI, et al. A comparison of low-dose heparin with low-molecular weight heparin as prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after major trauma. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:701-707.
FREE FULL TEXT
66. Bergmann JF, Neuhart E. A multicenter randomized double-blind study of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolic disease in elderly in-patients bedridden for an acute illness. Thromb Haemost. 1996;76:529-534.
ISI
| PUBMED
67. Harenberg J, Kallenbach B, Martin U, et al. Randomized controlled study of heparin and low molecular weight heparin for prevention of deep-vein thrombosis in medical patients. Thromb Res. 1990;59:639-650.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
68. Cairns JA, Gent M, Singer J, et al. Aspirin, sulfinpyrazone, or both in unstable angina: results of a Canadian multicenter trial. N Engl J Med. 1985;313:1369-1375.
ABSTRACT
69. Lewis H Jr, Davis JW, Archibald DG, et al. Protective effects of aspirin against acute myocardial infarction and death in men with unstable angina: results of a Veterans Administration Cooperative Study. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:396-403.
ABSTRACT
70. Oler A, Whooley MA, Oler J, Grady D. Adding heparin to aspirin reduces the incidence of myocardial infarction and death in patients with unstable angina: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 1996;276:811-815.
FREE FULL TEXT
71. Gurfinkel EP, Manos EJ, Mejail RI, et al. Low molecular weight heparin versus regular heparin or aspirin in the treatment of unstable angina and silent ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:313-318.
ABSTRACT
72. Fragmin during Instability in Coronary Artery Disease (FRISC) Study Group. Low-molecular-weight heparin during instability in coronary artery disease. Lancet. 1996;347:561-568.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
73. Klein W, Buchwald A, Hillis SE, et al. Comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin acutely and with placebo for 6 weeks in the management of unstable coronary artery disease: Fragmin in Unstable Coronary Artery Disease Study (FRIC). Circulation. 1997;96:61-68.
FREE FULL TEXT
74. The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 11A Trial Investigators. Dose ranging trial of enoxaparin for unstable angina: results of TIMI 11A. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;29:1474-1482.
ABSTRACT
75. Antman EM and the Thrombolyis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Investigators, TIMI 11B. Enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin for unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter trial: rationale, study design, and methods. Am Heart J. 1998;135:S353-S360.
76. Leizorovicz A. The FRAXIS study: optimal duration of treatment of unstable angina in the acute phase—preliminary results [abstract]. Presented at: 20th Congress of the European Society of Cardiology; August 22-26, 1998; Vienna, Austria.
77. Antman EM, McCabe CH, Premmereur J, et al. Enoxaparin for the acute and chronic management of unstable angina/non–Q wave myocardial infarction: results of TIMI 11B [abstract]. Circulation. 1998;98(suppl I):I-504.
78. Ferguson JJ. Meeting highlights: 47th annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. Circulation. 1998;97:2377-2381.
FREE FULL TEXT
79. Raschke RA, Reilly RM, Guidry JR, Fontana JR, Srinivas S. The weight based heparin nomogram compared with a "standard care" nomogram: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:874-881.
FREE FULL TEXT
80. Becker RC, Ball SP, Eisenberg P, et al. A randomized trial of weight-adjusted intravenous heparin dose titrationand point-of-care coagulation monitoring in hospitalized patients with active thromboembolic disease. Am Heart J. 1999;137:59-71.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
81. Mark DB, Cowper PA, Berkowitz SD, et al. Economic assessment of low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) versus unfractionated heparin in acute coronary syndrome patients: results from the ESSENCE randomized trial. Circulation. 1998;97:1702-1707.
FREE FULL TEXT
82. Balen RM, Marra CA, Zed PJ, Cohen M, Frighetto L. Cost-effectiveness analysis of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin for acute coronary syndromes: a Canadian hospital perspective. Pharmacoeconomics. In press.
83. The Platelet Receptor Inhibition in Ischemic Syndrome Management in Patients Limited by Unstable Signs and Symptoms (PRISM-PLUS) Study Investigators. Inhibition of the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor with tirofiban in unstable angina and non–Q-wave myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1488-1497.
FREE FULL TEXT
84. The Platelet Receptor Inhibition in Ischemic Syndrome Management (PRISM) Study Investigators. A comparison of aspirin plus tirofiban with aspirin plus heparin for unstable angina. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1498-1505.
FREE FULL TEXT
85. The PARAGON Investigators. International, randomized, controlled trial of lamifiban (a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor), heparin, or both in unstable angina. Circulation. 1998;97:2386-2395.
FREE FULL TEXT
86. Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy (PURSUIT) Trial Investigators. Inhibition of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa with eptifibatide in patients with acute coronary syndromes without persistent ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:436-443.
FREE FULL TEXT
87. The Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) IIb Investigators. A comparison of recombinant hirudin with heparin for the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:775-782.
FREE FULL TEXT
88. Antman EM for the TIMI 9B Investigators. Hirudin in acute myocardial infarction: thrombolysis and thrombin inhibition in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 9B trial. Circulation. 1996;94:911-921.
FREE FULL TEXT
89. Organisation to Assess Strategies for Ischemic Syndromes (OASIS-2) Investigators. Effects of recombinant hirudin (lepirudin) compared with heparin on death, myocardial infarction, refractory angina, and revascularisation procedures in patients with acute myocardial ischaemia without ST elevation: a randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;353:429-438.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Archives of Internal Medicine Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(16):1961-1962.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Congestive Heart Failure
POPPAS and ROUNDS
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2002;165:4-8.
FULL TEXT
Thigh Hematoma After Femoral Venipuncture in a Patient Treated With Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin
Kumar and Solti
Arch Intern Med 2001;161:1113-1114.
FULL TEXT
Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes
Levine et al.
Arch Intern Med 2001;161:937-948.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Safety and Cost of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin as Bridging Anticoagulant Therapy in Subacute Cerebral Ischemia
Kalafut et al.
Stroke 2000;31:2563-2568.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
